On Mar 9, 2007, at 0:43 , Jobst Heitzig wrote:
Dear Warren,
you wrote:
Aha, that explains it. The phrasing of the definition was
very poor since it can be parsed in several ways.
You have to try to define things in ways that can only be parsed
in one
way. It helps to use short sentences. With long sentences you
start wondering which word pairs up with which antecedent.
I must certainly apologize for my poor command of the English
language.
After all, it's a foreign language for me.
I try to do my best, but it is not always as clear as formal
mathematical
definitions.
Hopefully, most people know what I mean, otherwise please tell me.
Yours, Jobst
Never mind :-). Actually also the reverse is true. I have in few
occasions experienced that the descriptions of the non-native English
speakers are better for me than those of the native speakers. One
reason for this is that the native speakers may use different words
that have some detailed language or (more local) cultural area bound
differences in their meaning (and associations). Non-native writers
often write the definitions more in a fool proof wireframe model
style (using the words in their very basic meaning). Of course
sometimes also they carry cultural and language related influences
from their own languages/culture to the English language based
discussions.
Waiting for the emergence of sufficiently good formal languages to
discuss theoretical topics in an exact manner ;-)
BR, Juho
P.S. I read your definition as intended - don't know if this had
something to do with the discussed topic above - reading word "also"
very literally etc.
___________________________________________________________
All New Yahoo! Mail Tired of [EMAIL PROTECTED]@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
